For decades, the patriot community has been demonized by the government, and, by the mainstream media. We can understand why the government desires to impose a negative image upon those who would require them to abide by the Constitution, the document that created that government that supports them and subsidizes their rather pretentious lifestyle. We can also understand that the media, through various organizations and affiliations, is closely-knit with the government, and will, absent an easy alternative, present news in a manner that is acceptable to those who pretend to govern.

It’s not so much that the press wants to deceive the American public, though there is, to some extent (see The Press in Waco), that motivation, more significantly, it wants life to be easy, and, once committed to a story line, it becomes even more difficult to admit errors in previous stories.

An example of the tendency of a “story” gaining strength, even though inaccurate, and the perception, by the public, of that story, tending to become truth, is explained in A Prima Facie Story.

Understanding how the press works provides us a means to have a more significant effect on what s, ultimately, presented to the public. If we provide fuel of a negative nature, they will use that fuel, since it will, most likely, support the government line. This makes it very important for us to provide fuel that cannot be turned against us. In addition, this has to be early in the game, before the press becomes fixed in their story line.

In Waco, the press was not as bad as it could have been. Part of this can be explained by the duration, since over time, more truths, and more fallacies, come to light. The number of foreign reporters who often avoided the press conferences, and, in a traditional manner, sought people with knowledge to understand what was happening can also explain the source of a bit of pressure for more truthfulness. However, the full truth was not presented, in a forum for public consumption, until accurate documentaries managed to push aside the inaccurate documentaries, and truth did, finally, prevail.

In April 1995, Timothy McVeigh bombed a United States courthouse in Oklahoma City. Between Waco and that bombing, thousands of patriots, outraged over what had happened in Waco were crying for action. Going to Washington, D.C. and hanging the traitors, bombing government buildings, and military action against the FBI and BATF were discussed, and agreed to as practical polices, in light of what occurred in Waco, though, as we understand now, bravery is easy at a distance.

To provide some insight into what happened in Oklahoma City, I did extensive research, including responding to invitations from a number of people in Oklahoma City to go there and speak with them. These included the press, Glenn Wilburn (grandfather to the twins that his stepdaughter lost in the bombing, and the McVeigh defense team. Though I had already mailed McVeigh most of what I had written (Oklahoma City Bombing) up to that point, I sent copies into him through Richard Reyna, of the defense team. I was trying to get an interview with McVeigh. Reyna thought it would be a good idea, but Stephen Jones quashed the meeting. The best that I could get was Reyna bringing a message from Tim, “Close, real close”, regarding what I had written. Subsequently, I corresponded with McVeigh up until his execution (see McVeigh’s Forum, which is comprised, except for introductory statements, only information send to me by McVeigh, including the picture). I have also read “American Terrorist” by Michel and Herbeck, which was recommended by McVeigh, though was not published until after the Execution.

Given the information that I have compiled, and setting aside unsubstantiated claims and ‘technical facts’, that can be disputed by other experts, I can only conclude that McVeigh did what he did for the reasons that he said he did it. However, assuming that he did, in fact, follow the direction set out by those thousands of patriots, and bomb the Murrah Building, something went awry, and the patriot community picked up a story line that lead the government in providing bad press to the patriot community. This “public relations” lapse resulted in a near total decimation of the patriot community and the militia, which lasted for years. So, what went wrong?

When McVeigh bombed the building, even before his name was mentioned, certain outspoken members of the community (Bo Gritz, Linda Thompson, Mark Koernke, to name a few) began ‘disclaiming’ that there could be any involvement by the patriot community. I have often wondered how they managed to be so sure that others in the community would have obtained their blessings, or felt obligated to inform them of any actions that were contemplated or conducted. It is a bit presumptuous to assume that we had then, or have now, a command structure that would allow spokesmen to have full knowledge of goings on.

It is important to understand that the recognized (by the press) spokesmen for the patriot community achieved their prominence because the pres let them achieve that prominence. However, they did not speak for much more than themselves, the press said that they spoke for us, and, we believed them.

Now, what might be referred to as “The McVeigh Syndrome” comes into play. Because of the onslaught against McVeigh, tendered by the government, supported by “our spokesmen”, and supported, to the hilt (since there was no strong opposing story line) by the press, we find that probably 98% of the patriot community signed on” to that line. They had, so to speak, gotten on the bandwagon. To get off of that bandwagon is not an easy task, so most chose to stay on the bandwagon and support the story that had be shoved down our throats by the press.

Back to Waco, there was a video presented (by a member of our community) that purported to show a flame throwing tank being used on the Church in Waco. Though there were many indications that it could not be a flame-throwing tank, the story line (bandwagon) maintained top billing for many years. Finally, however, the truth did prevail, and most of the community realizes that there was no flame-throwing tank.

It appears that we do prefer to hear what we want to hear. It also appears that when choices are presented, early on, that we will choose from those available and then design what we want to hear upon that which we have select. At that point, little else matters. We will support our bandwagon regardless of evidence, logic, common sense, or indisputable proof to the contrary.

This leaves us with the necessity to get information out, as early as possible, so that those who broadcast, and formulate the opinion that most will develop, will have an opportunity to have a positive consideration of the matter available to them, while they are forming their stories. It is rather apparent that they cannot think while standing, so the information has to be provided to them so that it is, at least, available for their consideration. If it is sufficient to the purpose, it may provide them the means to keep from looking like a fool, and perpetuating that foolishness, since other possibilities might just make more sense than what the government has said.

We can look back to incidents in the past, such as the Viper Militia, in Phoenix, and the West Virginia Militia, back in the nineties. Arrests were made, stories got out, and then they were held to. Even though informants were involved in both instances, the public opinion was formulated without our participation. The result was that nobody was let out on bail, nor did the press every really deal with many of the truths of those incidents.

More recently, the Hutaree Militia was charged with planning to attack a funeral procession for a police officer, hoping to kick off a war with the government. The press picked up the story and started with their pronouncement of guilt. However, there were a number of articles written that questioned the entire ‘crime’ (see Thought Crimes). Surprisingly, the press seemed to back down, and, bail was set for the accused. Once another side is presented, it becomes more difficult for the press to participate in the demonization, and, it may trickle down, if not to the government, at least, to the courts.

People have suggested that the government does not care what we write or what we say. I would suggest that this is only partly true. During the Waco siege, I sent out, vie American Patriot Fax Network, daily reports of what was happening in Waco (Waco White Papers). I had arranged that the FBI headquarters in Waco would be one of the first to receive the reports, which were sent out nightly. To things occurred that showed that there is concern if what we write makes sense and poses a threat to the government line. Though I was ‘removed’ from the press conferences on March 21, I did follow them. Quite often, what I had written the night before would be addressed by the government in their opening monologue at the press conference. It appears that they wanted to do damage control, and were concerned about what was being written

Most of the people from out of town, government and patriot alike, ate at the Waco IHOP restaurant. It was the only decent 24 hour restaurant (Denny’s had lousy food and worse service). Bob Ricks did not smoke, but he was sitting in the smoking room, one morning, as we came in for breakfast. When I walked into the smoking room, I noticed that one of my faxes was on top of his pile of paperwork. He glanced up, noticed me, and slid the fax under some other papers and look back down to his coffee. There is little doubt that, though they will never admit it, they are concerned about what we write if it is well written especially in opening other thoughts up for discussion.

Probably most important, however, is what we write and what we say. The government will pounce (as they did in OKC) on outlandish or unsupportable stories. If the story is not well written and includes conjecture or theory, especially some of the more outlandish ones, the government loves the, On the other hand, if it poses legitimate questions; presents plausible scenarios; and, does not include anything that will subject it to public ridicule, the government is, well, quite concerned.

Another problem arises when the press wants to interview someone. If that person is not well versed in the trickery and chicanery that the press uses to entice statements that can be misconstrued, they will trap the novice into providing a sound bite that will end up biting the interviewee. And, it is amazing how far some bad press can go.

The press will be there. The press will cover the story. It is up to us to do what we can to assure that we get the best coverage that we can — for the message that goes out across the country will garner support for our side, or make us enemies, it will depend on how we work with that necessary evil — the press.

The bottom line is that we need to improve the competence in our communication with the MSM. We need to designate well-qualified people to act as spokesmen for a group or activity. These spokesmen need not be members of the activity or organization, and when security requires it, it is probably better that they not be. This always allows, if necessary, for avoidance or disclaimer.

It is important to have contact information when press releases are sent out, but the contact can anticipate spending a lot of time dealing with communicating, for failure to respond is, often, worse than any response could be. It tends to generate a “we don’t care about you” attitude, which forces the other side, doing their job, to resent the lack of willingness to respond. Further, it often leaves unanswered questions to the other person to “fill in the blanks”. Even if the question cannot, or should not, be answered, the courtesy of politely stating such will help establish the rapport that will, in the long run, benefit our side, and our story.

[Note: I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Trey Tasker for review and editing this article.]

Where we began

America! Just what is America? Well, for a few centuries, it was the ideal of individual freedom and prosperity. It was the hallmark of self-government, and it was the ultimate salvation of two major efforts of world conquest. It was the deciding factor in both world wars, and was the refuge for those oppressed, elsewhere. It was, for all intents and purposes, a great experiment that had proven itself over all other forms of government and a foundation of moral values, which, un-retarded, had provided a commitment to the rest of the world for aid in achieving similar prosperity, freedom, and moral value.

America is an overreaching name for what is, geographically, just another country in the world of countries, though it was also the name that applied to a Union of countries that had joined, for better, or for worse, to achieve those goals set out by the Founders, some 220 years ago. America was manifest in the United States of America. It was and remains that which is otherwise unachievable in other nations of the world.

A thorough study of the history of the United States will demonstrate, to all, that it had, after its inception, surpassed all expectations in establishing itself amongst the nations of the world as a formidable force with which to be reckoned.

Within 36 years of its separation from Great Britain, it had achieved the means of defending itself against the most powerful imperial power in the world.

Within the first century of its existence, it went through a tumultuous period of civil war, though it managed to avoid the separation, or change of government, that would otherwise have been the result of that upheaval.

Within just over a century, it had attained a position of esteemed prominence in the world of industry.

Within 150 years, it had become the economic center of the world whose dollar became the exchange currency most acceptable among the other nations of the world.

Looking back from the challenges of today, the questions that haunt us are:

1. Has America lost its values — its moral compass — and those many aspects, as set forth by our Founders, that had set it out as a model to the remainder of the world?

2. Has it outgrown its usefulness both to the people who call themselves Americans, as well as those who look, from afar, and envy that which was?

3. If so, what has lead to the demise of that image of a better life, or, was it just the imagination of those who proclaimed its nature, for those two hundred years?

Political Correctness

Freedom of Speech is probably the most important and absolutely necessary enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. The ability to express oneself, both to others and to the government, is fundamental in a country that is composed of self-governed people.

That freedom allows us to express ourselves to others, but also to ourselves.

So, what happened when the means by which we express our thoughts, concerns, ideas, beliefs, and, secrets, is curtailed, by any means, at all?

Let’s look at how this works. Suppose you have had a religious upbringing, and a morality founded upon that belief. You understand that heterosexual relationships are the only morally acceptable form of relationship. You were raised understanding that homosexuals were immoral, and the idea of two people of the same sex having relations together was repugnant. There was another word, a slang word that was used by most people including homosexuals, which was a reference to that type of relationship. The word was “queer”, yet it was not necessarily derogatory. After all, it meant odd, curious, or unexpected. There is little doubt that the definitions fit, when compared with what was presumed to be the proper moral relationship.

Of course, the term “queer”, being odd, was indicative of someone who was not up to par with the morality and, as such, tended to exclude them from the acceptable norm.

Now, what if there was a concerted effort to abolish the terms queer and homosexual, through a policy of what is known as “political correctness”? The substitute term would be “gay”, meaning light hearted, brightly colored, or carefree. Under the social, political, and, in some cases, legal pressure, you succumb to the new phrase for what was considered immoral, not to very long ago. You accept and use the term. Over time, your mind follows that implied change in the character and nature of the word, and what used to be unacceptable, or immoral, behavior, has, both in the spoken word, and in your mind, attained a degree of respectability that, without political correctness, would never have been achieved.

Before long, you have adjusted your moral values to accepting what you knew to be unacceptable, though you are not sure just how that change occurred.

Another word that has come into common usage, though is now defined differently than it was, just a few decades ago, is “hate”. Hate is defined a number of ways, such as, dislike intensively, or a strong distaste. Often, hate is defined as the opposite of love.

Hate, however, need not have, and in most cases, at least in the past had, no connotation of violence. Violence stood all by itself.

Recently, however, hate has changed from dislike of liver, or distaste from immoral behavior, to an adjective that is applied to certain crimes of violence, with the intention of providing more serious penalties, under certain conditions, usually unilaterally. We have accepted this definition so that certain portions of our society are afforded more protection, under the law, than others, regardless of the extent, and, often, regardless of the cause of a violent act. As a result, we have allowed ourselves to believe that crime perpetrated against some members of our society are worse than the same crime being perpetrated against other members of our society.

In both of the above examples, we have withheld our (freedom of) speech to avoid offending. As a result, we have managed to allow our minds to be manipulated into accepting things that we clearly knew to be untrue.

By subtle manipulation, we are having our fundamental right of freedom of speech transformed into behavioral manipulation, a form of social engineering, and, consequently, a very serious encroachment upon that sacred right.

Education

A number of advocates promoted public Education, early on in the formation of this country. Probably the most well known advocate would be Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson has given us many quotations of his belief in the necessity of public education, and each will engender the consideration of the effect of the absence of education upon the morality, prosperity (of the community), politics and the necessity for the people to understand, and then, approve or disapprove that actions of the government.

Public Education, however, predates Jefferson. In the Cape Cod area, for example, an annual tribute of fish was contributed to pay for the services of a teacher, available to all of the children, as compensation for his services.

However, after the formation of the new country, the United States of America, the promotion of public education was left to the county or other entity, at the local level. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that the idea really took hold and the literacy rates of the population began to increase.

Very probably, the long war, the destruction of property and lives, was instrumental in the desire to assure that the population could consider all aspects of political decisions, so that their affirmation of the actions of government would be based upon being sufficiently educated so as to be able to properly judge those actions.

The following is from the Department of Commerce data, and reflects the literacy rate (of the white population) from 1860 through 1979.

Note that there was a continual progression of literacy from 1870 through 1947. After the creation of the federal Department of Education, in 1953, we see a shift in education from the Public School System, which had achieved so much, over the previous century, to both federal and state entities. We also see a shift in the upward rates of literacy.

During this period, we were experiencing a rapid growth in population, what would eventually be style the “Baby Boomers”. These children, the byproduct of the attitude that prevailed after the victories of World War II, did put an increasing demand upon the educational resources, during that period from 1947 to 1952. It also removed the traditional, and, demonstrably successful, method of education that had brought us what was later described as the “greatest Generation”, all of whom were educated under the former system of Public Schools.

With the intrusion of the federal government, as well as the state governments, replacing the decision making from the local School Board, whose interest was of the ability to educate the children of their own community, to the centralized, political and bureaucratic control of education, by those quite distant from what the needs, abilities, and resources of the community were, also provided a new means of measuring literacy.

Under the new guidelines for the determination of literacy, as it has evolved to the present time, the schools will teach, primarily, that information which is necessary to pass the competence (literacy) test created to measure the ability of the schools to educate our children. Any education beyond the purpose of proving competence is secondary.

Arts, science, history, and many other areas of discipline have been subordinated to the effort directed to passing tests in which the answers have become the primary curriculum.

It has become abundantly clear that the average product of the government school system is, functionally, illiterate, though the statistics, revised to prove the efficacy of the centralized control of education, will prove to the contrary.

This deals strictly with education, though it does not deal, at all, with the morality, ideology, history, nature of government and the heritage of this once great nation. Can we assume that the desired effect of the educational system has been achieved when, for the most part, the educational system has become a tool for government propaganda and the reduction of the average education to one of rote and compliance?

Is it in our best interest to put into the hands of those who would enslave us, the education of our children? Or, should that responsibility be placed back in our own hands.

Religion

Those who first peopled the shores of America in the early Seventeenth Century were fleeing religious prosecution in Europe. As they established themselves on those hostile foreign shores, they established equally sectarian societies from those that they had fled. They were, however, more than willing to share the land with others and only endeavored to impose their religious sanctions on those in their immediate communities.

Originally, they were left alone, by the mother country, and allowed to practice as they saw fit. Over time, however, the Church of England began imposing the tenets of that Church in many communities, effecting the government of entire colonies. Other religions were allowed to practice, though all paid tribute to the master Church.

A turning point came in the late Eighteenth Century when the ties that had held the colonies to their mother, England, were severed. The mother Church was allowed to continue, though it was relegated to the same authority as all of the other churches in the country.

Though all religions were allowed to be practiced, even Mohametism, the moral values of the country were firmly established in the Judeo-Christian ethic. It was the foundation of the laws, the spirit and the prosperity that flowed from the people to make America a symbol of good and righteousness to the world.

It was the moral values that flowed from that religious source that inspired the courage, strength, and commitment, to enter two world wars, which tipped the balance of power and allowed the defensive powers to prevail against the aggressors.

America has, through its entire history, recognized the role of God in its foundations, establishments, and history. Religious quotations are inscribed on most of the government, both state and federal, buildings built in its first two centuries. Moses and the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, many times, on the Supreme Court Building. Prayers open every session of Congress and our currency bears a prominent “In God We Trust”.

More recently, however, those religious virtues have fallen to evil forces that are endeavoring to undermine the moral values and principles upon which that nation was founded. And, it is coming from an area least expected. It is coming through education — academia, and being fed to that country’s posterity, without the consent of the parents, and, as insidiously as if the Church of England were back in control of education, morality, and law.

Of course, it is couched in an innocuous term, evolution. The term, however, permeates that society on levels that most have never even considered. In ‘public’ schools, which used to utilize the Bible as a means of teaching reading, and, following the example of Congress, opened each school day with prayer.

In 1852, a forty-one year old Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”. It was, then, a theory put forth by Darwin that all life evolved from a single cell, which was formed by an accident. Of course, Darwin knew nothing of DNA, or he may have reconsidered the complexity of a single cell — and its chance of creation.

Today, however, this “theory” has had no advancement, yet it is espoused by the academic community, the scientific community, and the courts (who no longer provide a Bible for swearing in). They accept the “theory” of evolution over the accepted principle of creation, which now, in deference to the campaign against it, goes by the name of “Intelligent Design”.

The proponents of evolution call intelligent design a theory. They claim that it is unsubstantiated and that no proof exists supporting the existence of God. They advance their theories on the foundation of scientific proof that evolution is the means by which life, and man, came into being. They have, through massive campaigns, removed that which was, Creationism, from the classroom, from the government (where it had comfortably resided for two centuries) and the search for the source of life, science.

The Evolutionists can best explain the effect, especially in the classroom, themselves. Most will proclaim that they did once believe in God and were raised religiously, though upon their study of evolution, they determined that there is no God, so they became atheists. Though, perhaps, not scientifically provable, they have laid claim to the proof of the lack of the existence of God to be a direct result of their studies.

They have created, by academic denial for those who believe in Intelligent Design, through establishing curriculum absent any mention of Intelligent Design, through refusal to consider Intelligent Design in any scientific research, and by pursuing legislative restriction on the discussion of Intelligent Design, an environment which is void of such teaching, or even the consideration of Intelligent Design, voiding the minds of our youth of any consideration of those sources of Providence to which the people, and this nation, owe so much.

Absent religion, which provides a moral foundation, we can expect that morality will become as individualistic and varied as the number of people in that country. Situational ethics — doing what feels right — is becoming the morality of America, and, though not scientific, by any means, is best demonstrated by the very obvious changes in morality (out of wedlock birth rates, divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) in recent decades.

The decline in morality and virtue is indicative of the failure of a society. It loses its moral fiber that binds people together, its commonality, and its very binding sprit, which will, eventually, lead to its demise.

The final point to be made, here, is that the government has chosen to dictate what cannot be said from the pulpit, which has had sufficient impact upon the preaching of immorality.

Immigration

Immigration can be one of many lifebloods of a nation. In the case of the United States, that lifeblood began flowing more than 350 years before the birth of that nation. Immigrants from Europe came for many reasons, though most commonly, to practice their Christian faith, without obedience to a state/church government. This Freedom of Religion, though restricted by community, was not restrictive to the practice of religion, as each saw fit.

Through those first few hundred years, the Anglican Church, from England, held absolute sway, in some of the colonies. Other religions may have been allowed, by tithes (taxes) were paid to the Anglican Church for distribution only to the Anglican churches.

After the founding of the United States, religious freedom was guaranteed to all, and embodied in the Bill of Rights. For those, then, and their posterity, the freedom of religion (absence of laws restricting the practice of religion) became assured for generations to come.

Time, however, and the lust for power in government (fear of opposition) generated a subtle change that would begin to diminish this significant right (birthright) of Americans.

It began with the simple gift of tax-exemption for churches. With the imposition of taxes, which are questioned by many as even being constitutional, any organization requesting exemption from those taxes must file with the government claiming status as a religious, not for profit, corporation.

This, by itself, had no effect on the ability of the church to preach sermons that might favor a candidate, or a policy. But, over time, those who controlled the purse strings wrote into the laws that the churches, in order to maintain their tax exemption, could not support candidates or policies, unless the government turned their back. This meant that preaching could include support for anything that the government wanted, but excluded any sermon that would undermine the authority of government, by removing that exemption.

Churches were left to abandon any sermon, regardless of how well founded in scripture that was in opposition to government policy. Morality had become subject to the approval of the government. Consequently, church corporations began voting, by whatever form that had chosen, to abandon doctrines that were fundamental to their scriptures.

Few, however, have been willing to challenge the illegitimacy of such incursions into the practice of religion, though most of them are fully aware that sermons preached within the laws of the time (under British rule) offered no such limitation on the exercise of religion.

With banner held high, “Freedom of Religion”, we continue to accept that government is, as required by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, protecting that fundamental element of a person, and a nation’s, morality.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing and other industries were major elements in achieving prosperity, and attaining the recognition as the greatest industrial power on the earth.

In the Nineteenth Century, the availability of natural resources; open land; desire for expansion and settlement of those open lands; and the free market (uncontrolled by government) became the means by which that prosperity was achieved.

Industry was able to find a market place for its goods. The availability of resources was unlimited, allowing for rates of production to meet demands. Absence of governmental involvement gave a free hand for the free market to develop plants, seek new markets, and innovate new products, beyond anything the world had beheld before. Tens of thousands of miles of railroad connected the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and Canada to Mexico. Each new mile added additional resources, land for settlement, and profit, which returned to expand the network, even further.

Innovation created new machinery for harvesting of crops, reducing manpower, and increasing productivity in the bread belt, thereby providing more than ample supplies of food to the growing nation.

Innovation also developed new methods of manufacturing, which would continue to lead the way in production, for decades to come.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, war encompassed the world. The geographic isolation allowed product supplies to be increased to meet the demands of wartime goods. Though our participation in WWI was not immediate, eventually, the spirit, ingenuity, and individualism that had lead to that prosperity provided an American fighting force that turned the tide of that war.

Just a few decades later, another war encompassed the world. The productivity of that industrial giant was able to produce goods, and transport them across the seas, at a rate that was unachievable by all of the other countries, individually AND combined. Once again, the American fighting force was the turning point in the war.

The demands of this second war had produced production lines incomparable to anything that preceded it. Plants that produced toys were converted to the manufacture of weapons, within weeks. Means were developed to adapt to any demand, and the production facilities went undamaged by war, providing a prosperity, post-war, that was later defined as the American Dream.

To this point in time, a philosophy of “A Good Product at a Fair Price” was the motivation, both in and out of war, to produce. America was second to none in industry, and more than willing to share its knowledge and resources to rebuild the damaged countries resulting from that war — even the enemy’s country were rebuilt and their industry re-established, mostly along the lines of what America hand learned in the century preceding.

About this time, and in order to aid another country’s recovery, a practice of contracting foreign industry to produce certain goods lead to the denigration of a product by referencing the country or origin, “Made in Japan”. These products, for the most part, were low profit, easily made, and required little technical ability to produce.

Over the next few decades, Industry continued to prosper, however, the philosophy shifted from “A Good Product…” to what became known as “the bottom line” mentality.

As a consequence, many of the industrial machines were produced, under contract to foreign nations, and then returned to the United States bearing the name of a United States corporation. The same foreign manufactures also manufactured the same products for sale through different distribution systems, bearing their name, even though the products were otherwise identical.

Most of the raw materials (natural resources) to manufacture these products were mined in the United States, transported across Canada to Pacific ports, shipped overseas in foreign vessels, processed, manufactured to finished products, and then returned to the United States on foreign vessels. Amazingly, these products would be for sale at less cost than they could be manufactured here.

One of the reasons for this gross disparity in cost of production was the proliferation of unions, demanding higher wages, more benefits, and job security, and, often, limiting production rates to ease the burden on the worker.

The government, by the end of World War II, legislated in favor of these unions, without regard to the consequences, and by venturing where the Constitution did not authorize them to go.

This fueled the fires of profit, at any cost, to the point that became destructive to American industry. Quite the opposite of “protective tariffs”, the new course was actually beneficial both by support of unions and reduction of tariffs (e.g. Most Favored Nation status), resulting in the decimation of American industry.

Currently, less than 10% of the manufactured goods in the marketplace are made in this country, though they may well bear American names, such as Ford, General Electric, and Motorola.

Absent foreign imports, whether with, or without American names, our lives would approach third world status, unable to obtain goods for everyday household chores, workplace tools, and even industrial equipment. Even obscure countries produce more for their own consumption than does America.

In less than one hundred years, we have gone from the apex of industry to a country almost void of industrial production. We have become dependent for our daily lives upon those who may, at some time in the future, become our enemies.

Dependency

Dependency, by its very nature, makes one subordinate to that upon which it depends. Children are dependent upon their parents, until they have reached an age and the competence in which they can depend upon themselves — independence.

Employees are dependent on their employers to provide both the wages that they earned, and a marketplace for the product that they provide, so that money is available for such wages. Employers, in turn, are dependent upon the performance of their employees to provide quality products and services.

Governments are dependent upon their citizens to provide the guidance (by whatever means the construction of the government is based upon), and for revenue (again, based upon those means provided) for the operation of that government.

In turn, the citizens of a nation are dependent upon the government (in the case of the United States) for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

What happens when the government — the society — for which it is obliged to provide the means to protect, becomes dependent upon another government, or country, to assure that the means of daily living can be obtained in order for that society to survive?

If the government, for any reason, especially after having fully demonstrated that these means are readily available within the country, legislates in such a manner as to reduce, or even remove, those means, requiring that the society is now dependent upon another country for its daily means, has it transferred the primary responsibility for its citizens to another country — and government?

Has it, by these means, dissolved its entire purpose — in subordination to foreign interests?

Is it possible that the country which has relied upon its government to secure those means, by abrogating its responsibility, has destroyed the government and relegated its citizens to the mercy of the whims of another country?

We remain fully capable of providing some aspects of life, such as medicine, weapons of war and destruction, and a relentless line of politicians more than willing to reduce us, even further, into dependency upon others.

Catastrophic is an understatement of the effect, both short and long term that this transfer of dependence will have upon us.

Tradition

Every nation in the world is steeped in tradition. Those traditions, whether good or bad in the eyes of outsiders, are a binding force in that nation’s culture and are necessary so that the longevity, coherence, and perpetuation of that culture to continue. Absent that background, it is nothing less than a new nation without a foundation, course, or future.

The longstanding traditions of the United States have come under attack, recently, undermining the very fabric of that nation granted, by Providence (yes, that is a substantial part of the tradition), to the people who settled, then fought for the existence of it.

As the traditions are eroded away, under whatever guise might be undertaken to supplant them, so, too, is the personality, the character, the entire embodiment, of that nation.

When those traditions are eroded using the guise of the Founding papers, the Constitution, as an excuse for their erosion, the complacency of those who merely stand by and watch becomes as much of the destructive force as those who, by intent, are striving for the destruction of that nation.

Regardless of the ambitions of the latter, or the absence of objection by the former, the effect is the same. They both allow a transition of government, as much as if conquered buy military force, though the means are far more subtle. The intention is the same, and the result is as effective as the alternative.

Taxation

Though only a small part of what lead to the Revolutionary War, taxes, as they have through history, have become the means by which people are most often oppressed.

The French-Indian Wars had taken an economic toll on England. Generally, the coffers of government are maintained, absent war, by a relatively small tax, intended to replace the debt incurred by war. This was the case with the Stamp Act, in 1765. In order to replenish the treasury, taxes were laid on the colonies. This, along with the removal of charter government (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence) incited sufficient concern in the colonists to begin down the pathway that, eventually, lead to separation from England.

The intention, as had been the practice, even under British rule, was to restore the Treasury and then to remove the taxes, with the need for replenishment no longer being necessary.

That practice served America quite well, during its first nearly two centuries. The taxes imposed during World War II were in the single digit percentages, and the tax that had been imposed was, originally, imposed only for the duration of the war.

Instead, and by the time the America attempted to accomplish, in Vietnam, what the French had failed to achieve, the government had raised taxes, and they had become a way of life. Twenty percent of income, or more, was the norm, nearly seven times greater, on all income, than the 3% taxes, only on certain items, that had roused the anger of the colonists.

Government had determined that they could maintain near perpetual war, if they were able to provide a constant and permanent flow of revenue, never allowing the coffers to be depleted.

Their President, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1961, in his Farewell Address, provided insight into what he had seen as a threat to the future of America, when he said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

He realized that the “economic favors” bestowed upon those who made weapons of war, by the government who benefited, in one way or another, from perpetual war, was a danger to what our country stood for.

Leadership

The leadership in this country is recognized by that title, but have you considered what the word means?

Leaders are those who lead. Just how do they achieve such significance that would warrant our following them?

Back in the late seventeen and early eighteen hundreds, there were many who had achieved their positions of leadership through demonstration of their ability to lead, and thereby justify our willingness to follow them.

Over the years, however, things have changed. Now, the people that we are to follow come from a degree of obscurity. Their respective parties, somewhere along the line, have decided that they have ‘achieved’ such prominence that they can be cast forth as leaders. But, what criteria are used to determine that they have demonstrated their ability to lead?

Consider, if you will, that for them to garner the support of the party, they will have had to assure that the party is well satisfied with, well, their obedience to the party. Let us take the current president of the United States. He was obscure. A senator from Illinois, who was nothing more than a yes man for the party. Virtually all of his votes were on the party line, though he had something going for him: the party, already satisfied with his obedience, determined that they could promote some aspects for their chosen candidate and convince the voters throughout the country that this man was worthy of the role of leader. Nothing to demonstrate that he could, it is simply a matter of selling their candidate to the public. This is accomplished by taking polls; analysis of the results; developing marketing strategies, not unlike those used to sell cereal or drugs; and, determining what people want to hear, in each region of the country, and assuring that their candidate says, in that region, what they have told him to say, in that region, and, likewise, in the other regions. If you should have any doubts, recall what the candidates have said in the past, such as, “Read my lips, no New Taxes”, or, “I will have a transparent government.”

In the end, better leaders can probably be found by looking in your local community rather than looking at the television, which will bring you exactly what you want to see.

Government is designed to serve the people. Understanding that it is impractical, and imprudent, for everybody to be involved in every decision required to be made at the top level of government, we have developed a system whereby the will of the people, through their chosen representatives, is made so, on the people’s behalf.

If you would, imagine an inverted triangle. The base, being at the top, constitutes the people. Below them are the representatives of the people, and at the very bottom, the point of the inverted triangle, is the President of the United States. His purpose, according to the Constitution, is the chief executive of the country. His job, then, is to carry out the will of the people (top of the triangle), as expressed through their representatives (middle of the triangle). He is the lowest man on the triangle, and his job is to work for us, on our behalf.

For whatever reason, perhaps an inadequacy in the educational system, we have learned to accept the triangle in the wrong configuration. We have allowed that the President is at the top of the triangle, master of all. Below him is the Congress, our representatives, making decisions that are both contrary to, and against our will. Finally, at the bottom, are we, the people, who find ourselves forced into obedience to the government, and, paying all the bills that they can accumulate, while attempting to tell us that what they are doing is in our best interest?

Where does this leave us?

Through a slow and meticulous process, events that are hardly noticed begin to have an effect on the people, and the future, by that same process, is modified in such a way that the people who have thought that they knew what freedom was, eventually, find that they are no longer free, nor are they what they thought that they were.

Those in control will exert their efforts to the point that a substantial majority will accept the conditions that they have imposed.

In time, the acceptability of what has been imposed, through these subtle means, becomes even more accepted, if not in years, in a decades or two, that which was, will be lost among the pages of history. The newly accepted condition becomes the platform for the next generation of change, which, ultimately, will result in that which the United States was to be lost, and that which it has become to be accepted as that which always was.

When unlawful force or influence are used to undermine the obligations of government, the people subject to that government, are also slaves to that government.

This, unless we accept our responsibility of restoring that which was, will result in the Demise of America.